Monday, October 31, 2005
I recognized my pain, but I did not indulge in it. For years, I marched against the wind. The harder it blew, the faster I walked. I saluted the cold rain when others took refuge. I saluted my breathlessness, brokenness, and sorrow. Those were the moments I felt most alive, most dedicated, and most determined. And now… There is simply no pain to inspire. Only the anguish of purposelessness and indulgence. This is my story; welcome to my narrative of suffering.
Thursday, October 27, 2005
The president of the Islamic Republic (of Iran) (a few years ago I wouldn’t have to mention Iran, but now thanks to the recent invasions, we have the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, and the Republic of Iraq may be on its way to become Islamic as well) Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has spoken some unfriendly words about Israel at a conference in Tehran entitled “The World without Zionism”. Apparently, he has stated that the Jewish state should be “wiped off the map”. I can’t imagine that the Iranian readers of this blog would be surprised by Ahmadinejad’s opinion. That’s what we’ve been hearing from the Islamic regime for the last 20 something years anyway. I have yet to see the first Iranian politician at the government or legislative level to openly recognize the state of Israel. It’s the regime’s official policy. It transcends presidents and political parties. And that’s something the world is very well aware of. For years, Iran has been supporting anti-Israel movements with material and people. That’s a fact; everyone knows it. But surprisingly, Ahmadinejad’s speech has provoked many “hot” reactions across the western world as if the western politics has been sleeping for the last 27 years. For instance, white House spokesman, Scott McClellan, has said that Ahmadinejad’s speech "… underscores the concerns we have about Iran's nuclear operations." Some European countries, and of course Israel itself, have come up with similar statements.
Take one more look at the quote above. See how the same old story of Iran’s problem with the state of Israel is now directly linked to its nuclear operation. I think that the ever-present Iranian policy towards Israel is being used to further pressure Iran to give up its nuclear ambitions. Above all, the U.S. wouldn’t mind if the situation escalates through all this commotion about a single speech. Maybe then is a referral to the Security Counsel more feasible.
Thursday, October 20, 2005
I have an issue with the Saddam trial. But, first, let me tell you this: I hate Saddam Hossein for his oppression of the Iraqi people, execution of the opposition and killing a huge number of Iranians and Iraqi-Kurds during the war. But there is something seriously wrong here.
First of all, Saddam is still the president of Iraq, and should, at least according to its law, enjoy immunity. Why is he still the president? Because there hasn’t been an election to lawfully transfer his power to a new head of state. The reason for the regime change was not a referendum, but a foreign invasion that was not even supported by a UN resolution. As Kofi said, the invasion was “illegal”. I conclude from this sentence that the whole regime change was illegal. Hence, the tribunal is illegal as well. What does that mean for the trial itself?
Second, I have a problem with the media coverage. The whole trial is being broadcasted with an approximate delay of 20 to 30 minutes. Why? Officially, they don’t want to allow Saddam to use the trial as a mean to spread his propaganda. That’s the story we see in the majority of the Western newspapers. But I think there is another reason for the censorship. Maybe some people don’t want Saddam to go into some details they don’t wanna hear about, like the fact that the chemical weapons, which he used to kill his own people, were actually made and sold to him by the U.S. and the UK. Or maybe they don’t want him to tell the world that Donald Rumsfeld had a girly handshake….